ML20236M838
| ML20236M838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1987 |
| From: | Alexion T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schnell D UNION ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708110271 | |
| Download: ML20236M838 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
AUG 0 51987 i
Docket No. 50-483 DISTRIBUTION:
w Docket? filesb PKreutzer NRC PDR TAlexion Local PDR OGC-Bethesda PDIII-3 r/f EJordan i
DWigginton JPartlow i
Mr. Donald F. Schnell
'GHolahan ACRS(10) i Vice President - Nuclear Union Electric Company Post Office Box I49 St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Dear Mr. Schnell:
I
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING UPRATING APPLICATION l
The staff is continuing its review of'your March 31 and April 21, 1987 I
submittals concerning your uprating application. The staff requests additional information identified in the Enclosure to continue its review.
This request for information affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under Pub. L.96-511.
Sincerely, l
h/
Thomas W. Alexion, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
As stated i
i cc: See next page l
t Office:
LA'/PD II-3
/
t-3 PD/kDIII-3 i
Surname: PKreutzer TAlexi n/tg DWigginton Date:
08/j~/87 08/'3 /87
.08/g/87 l[0 kDbCk b
$3 P
[
b L.
h b.
Mr. D. F. Schnell Callaway Plant Union Electric Company Unit No. 1 cc:
l l
J. O. Cermak, CFA Inc.
Mr. Barth D. Withers i
4 Professional Dr., Suite 110 President and Chief l
l Gaithersburg, MD 20379 Executive Officer l
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating f-Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Corporation F
Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
P. O. Box 411 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Burlington, Kansas 66839 l
l 2300 N Street, N. W.
l Washington, D. C.
20037 Mr. Dan I. Bolef, President Kay Drey, Representative Mr. G. L. Randolph Board of Directors Coalition General Manager, Operations for the Environment
!f Union Electric Company St. Louis Region Post Office Box 620 6267 Delmar Boulevard Fulton, Missouri 65251 University City, Missouri 63130 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office RR#1 Steedman, Missouri 65077 "Mr. Donald W. Capone, Manager Nuclear Engineering s
I)nion Electric Company Post Office Box 149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 Chris R. Rogers, P.E.
Maqager - Electric Department 301 W. High Post Office Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Regionel Administrator U. S. NRC, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Ronald A. Kucera, Deputy Director Department of Natural Resources P. O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65T02
mm REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
~
l POWER UPRATING CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 1
DOCKET NO. 50-483 In your submittal dated March 31, 1987, you proposed a license amendment concerning power uprating for the Callaway Plant, Unit I and provided an I
analysis of the balance of plant (BOP) systems' capacity to accommodate power j
uprating to 3565 MWt core power level (3579 MWt NSSS).
Provide the following additional infonnation with respect to this proposal:
f 1.
You stated in your submittal that:
l l
a) It was concluded that, with the exception of the turbine-generator l
system, they [ BOP systems) have the capability to function properly at I
H the uprated power level of 3S79 MWt NSSS power without any modifications q
to the existing design.
b) The turbine-generator system is designed to operate at 3562 MWt i
power. The performance of the system will be monitored closely by Union Electric (U.E.) between 3562 MWt and 3579 MWt power.
Provide the results of the reanalysis which demonstrates that the power uprating will not affect the previous staff approval of the plant turbine missile protection.
In this regard, verify that the turbine over-speed 1
protection system provides adequate control under all operating conditions j
and will assure that a full-load turbine trip will not cause the turbine to overspeed beyond acceptable limits which could result in turbine missiles.
- 2. '. You stated in your main feedwater system (MFS) evaluation that:
1 a) At an uprated power level, the feedwater system will see a rise ih,
temperature of 1.5"F and a flow increase of less than 1 percent from the previous valve wide open (VWO) design flow, b) The effect of such a small increase in flow on the flow velocities, system pressure drop and the high pressure heater performance will be negligible. For the small change in flow, there will be no impact on the performance of the pumps. These pumps, including their turbine drivers, have sufficient capacity to produce the uprated flow.
Provide assurance that the safety related portion of the MFS piping and the MFS isolation valves'can withstand the uprated conditions and continue to perform their safety function.
3.
You stated in your steam Onerator blowdown system (SGBS) evaluation that at the uprated level, the processino capability of the blowdown system will be utilized to the extent required to keep the water chemistry within specification.
In fact, you indicate that the increase in feedwater/ main steam flow at the uprated level is so small (less than 1 percent increase) that no impact on SGBS is expected.
Provide further details regarding your evaluation which explains how this conclusion was reached.
n 4
6 fW 2
=
~
4.
In your proposal, concerning the reactor makeup water system (RMWS) l evaluation, you stated that an increased spent fuel pool evaporation rate due to increased heat loads has been calculated. The present RPWS design provides sufficient makeup water for this demand. No other change in the demand for reactor makeup water is likely due to the uprating.
Provide further details regarding your evaluation which explains how this conclusion was reached.
5.
You stated in your submittal that the only systems with an increase in h
flow rates are main feedwater, condensate, and main steam systems. You-further state that this increase is less than one (1) percent and, therefore, o
will not have any significant impact on the flooding analysis in safety-related areas of the plant. Verify that the original analysis of flooding contains sufficient conservatism and margin to offset the impact of the -
increased flow rates in these systems in areas containing safety related equipment.
N.
6.
Provide a legible full size copy of Figure 1 - Valves Wide Open IVWO),
hy Heat Balance.
t 7.
As part of your request to increase the power level at the Callaway Plant by 4.5%, you stated that "in order to confirm that equipment qualification will not be affected, all equipment inside containment was reviewed." In order to concur with your conclusions, the staff needs the following additional information: a) Provide the results of your review including any changes that are required to update your Equipment y
Qualification Program as stated in FSAR Section 3.11(b) and FSAR Table 6.2.1-2.
This review should consider all applicable equipment in harsh p'
environments both inside and outside containment.
In addition to the obvious changes that may appear in FSAR Section 3.11, discuss any changes in previously postulated mild environment (s) (e.g., are any of these
)
dreas previously considered to be mild environments now harsh due to the increaseinpowerlevel).
If there are new areas that are now conside, red to be harsh, all equipment within the scope of 10 CFR 50.49 must be environmentallyqualifiedaccordingly;b)Identifyanddiscusschange(s) in environmental profiles (i.e., pressure, temperature, radiation and humidity) for both normal operating conditions and accident conditions resulting from the power uprating; c) As a result of any postulated increase in normal operating temperature, discuss the affects of such changes on the qualified life of essential equipment (i.e., if the "10*C rule is used for calculating qualified life, note that an increase of 10*C will reduce the qualified life by 50%. Also note that significant changes in qualified life also occur with relatively small changes in temperature when using the arrtahenius methodology).
4 s
m,s
,,, L
'